Polypharmacy composition and patient- and provider-related variation in patients with epilepsy

Neuroprotective potential of topiramate, pregabalin and lacosamide combination in a rat model of acute SE and intractable epilepsy: Perspectives from electroencephalographic, neurobehavioral and regional degenerative analysis

The lithium-pilocarpine model is commonly used to recapitulate characteristics of human intractable focal epilepsy. In the current study, we explored the impact of topiramate (TPM) alone and in combination with pregabalin and lacosamide administration for 6 weeks on the evolution of spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS) and disease-modifying potential on associated neuropsychiatric comorbidities. In addition, redox impairments and neurodegeneration in hippocampus regions vulnerable to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) were assessed by cresyl violet staining. Results revealed that acute electrophysiological (EEG) profiling of the ASD cocktail markedly halted sharp ictogenic spikes as well as altered dynamics of brain wave oscillations thus validating the need for polytherapy vs. monotherapy. In TLE animals, pharmacological intervention for 6 weeks with topiramate 10 mg/kg in combination with PREG and LAC at the dose of 20 mg/kg exhibited marked protection from SRS incidence, improved body weight, offensive aggression, anxiety-like behavior, cognitive impairments, and depressive-like behavior (p < 0.05). Moreover, combination therapy impeded redox impairments as evidenced by decreased MDA and AchE levels and increased activity of antioxidant SOD, GSH enzymes. Furthermore, polytherapy rescued animals from SE-induced neurodegeneration with increased neuronal density in CA1, CA3c, CA3ab, hilus, and granular cell layer (GCL) of the dentate gyrus. In conclusion, early polytherapy with topiramate in combination with pregabalin and lacosamide prompted synergy and prevented epileptogenesis with associated psychological and neuropathologic alterations.

Management of patients with epilepsy and Intellectual disabilities in group homes vs. Family Homes: Insights into polypharmacy and seizure characteristics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the differences in ASMs prescription, seizure characteristics and predictors of polypharmacy in patients with epilepsy and Intellectual disabilities (IDs) residing in group homes versus family homes.

METHODS

This nine-year retrospective study analyzed patients with epilepsy and IDs who were admitted to the EMU, epilepsy clinics at LHSC and rehabilitation clinics for patients with IDs at Parkwood Institution. The study included individuals aged 16 years and older residing in either group homes or family homes. Data on demographics, epilepsy characteristics, and ASMs use were collected and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. The study utilized binary logistic regression to identify predictors of polypharmacy in patients with epilepsy and IDs.

RESULTS

The study enrolled a total of 81 patients, of which 59.3 % resided in family homes. Group home residents were significantly older (41 vs. 24.5 years; p = 0.0001) and were prescribed more ASMs (3 vs. 2; p = 0.002). Specific ASMs were more common in group homes, including valproic acid (54.5 % vs. 25.0 %), lacosamide (54.5 % vs. 22.9 %), topiramate (33.3 % vs. 14.6 %), and phenytoin (30.3 % vs. 6.2 %). Admission to the EMU was more prevalent in group homes (93.9 % vs. 52.1 %; p = 0.0001). Living in a group home increased the risk of polypharmacy (OR = 10.293, p = 0.005), as did older epilepsy onset age (OR = 1.135, p = 0.031) and generalized or focal & generalized epilepsy (OR = 7.153, p = 0.032 and OR = 10.442, p = 0.025, respectively).

SIGNIFICANCE

Our study identified notable differences in the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with epilepsy and IDs living in group homes versus family homes. Age of epilepsy onset, EMU admissions, epilepsy types, and residency setting were significant predictors of polypharmacy. These findings highlight the need for personalized care strategies and increased awareness of the potential risks associated with polypharmacy.

Multimorbidity in People with Epilepsy

Multimorbidity is an emerging priority in healthcare due to associations with the ageing population, frailty, polypharmacy, health and social care demands. It affects 60-70% of adults and 80% of children with epilepsy. Neurodevelopmental conditions are commonly seen in children with epilepsy, while cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative conditions often afflict older people with epilepsy. Mental health problems are common across the lifespan. Genetic, environmental, social and lifestyle factors contribute to multimorbidity and its consequences. Multimorbid people with epilepsy (PWE) are at higher risk of depression and suicide, premature death, suffer lower health-related quality of life, and require more hospital admissions and health care costs. The best management of multimorbid PWE requires a paradigm shift from the traditional single disease-single comorbidity approach and a refocus on a person-centred approach. Improvements in health care must be informed by assessing the burden of multimorbidity associated with epilepsy, delineating disease clusters, and measuring the effects on health outcomes.

Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis

Objective

The 1991 Medical Research Council (MRC) Study compared seizure relapse for seizure‐free patients randomized to withdraw vs continue of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We re‐analyzed this trial to account for crossover between arms using contamination‐adjusted intention to treat (CA ITT) methods, to explore dose‐response curves, and to validate predictions against external data. ITT assesses the effect of being randomized to withdraw, as‐treated analysis assesses the confounded effect of withdrawing, but CA ITT assesses the unconfounded effect of actually withdrawing.

Methods

CA ITT involves two stages. First, we used randomized arm to predict whether patients withdrew their ASM (logistic) or total daily ASM dose (linear). Second, we used those values to predict seizure occurrence (logistic).

Results

The trial randomized 503 patients to withdraw and 501 patients to continue ASMs. We found that 316 of 376 patients (88%) who were randomized to withdraw decreased their dose at every pre‐seizure visit, compared with 35 of 424 (8%) who were randomized to continue (p < .01). Adjusted odds ratios of a 2‐year seizure for those who withdrew vs those who did not was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–1.9) in the as‐treated analysis, 2.5 (95% CI 1.9–3.4) comparing those randomized to withdraw vs continue for ITT, and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1–4.5) for CA ITT. Probabilities (withdrawal vs continue) were 28% vs 24% (as‐treated), 40% vs 22% (ITT), and 43% vs 21% (CA ITT). Differences between ITT and CA ITT were greater when varying the predictor (reaching zero ASMs) or outcome (1‐year seizures). As‐treated dose‐response curves demonstrated little to no effects, but larger effects in CA ITT analysis. MRC data overpredicted risk in Lossius data, with moderate discrimination (areas under the curve ~0.70).

Significance

CA ITT results (the effect of actually withdrawing ASMs on seizures) were slightly greater than ITT effects (the effect of recommend withdrawing ASMs on seizures). How these findings affect clinical practice must be individualized.